I do have to say publiusr - The one politician who has openly endorsed alt-space, and you think he's the best option for presidental material. And yet you ignore the others. I've mentioned Dean, and Nelson, and there are others. Stabenow (my senator who kicks total ass) is pro-space.

The truth is, there are too many vested interests in Nasa to keep it from dying, kinda like vested interested in keeping launches expensive.

Criticism from the US is a little like the pot calling the kettle black.... although there are two significant differences:

1. The US test was in 1985, when there were far fewer satellites in orbit.
2. US test was an intercept at 345 miles, ~200 miles lower than the Chinese test... meaning that some of the debris from the Chinese test will remain in orbit for greater than 25 years. As a general rule, objects below 600 km will reenter the Earth's atmosphere within 25 years, unless artificially boosted to a higher orbit.

Still, I would support a ban on asat weapons. The debris consequences of multiple on-orbit asat tests would be the slippery slope down the road to Kessler Syndrome (domino effect of debris destroying satellites and generating even more debris...)

China is a participant in the deliberations of the Inter-Agency Debris Coordination Committee (iadc-online.org).

Ironically, the NASA Orbital Debris Quarterly news was released earlier this week.

Speculation in the media is that China may be attempting to force a ban on asat weapons. I don't expect the Bush Administration to sign up to that though. Heaven forbid we get into agreements with China, who I'd still trust more than the Soviets.

Hopefully the next administration realizes the slippery slope that weapons in space is.

In my opinion, the only legitimate need for weapons in space is for nukes against Near Earth Objects, though there are FAR more effective ways of dealing with NEOs than nukes, two movies not withstanding.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I expect the neocons in the administration and US military to push for more US capabilities, but I'm hoping that Congress will nip that in the bud.

Debris in space is a bad bad idea.

But I digress...

- Alistair

_________________Mach 25 Begins With Safety

Last edited by alistair on Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As I see it China is in a win-win situation. If the US is forced to negotiate a treaty to stop testing then thats OK if they refuse to negotite then China keeps testing and eventually LEO fills up with debris which puts the brakes on any tests and restricts the use of LEO satellites. Since the US is most dependant on its military access to LEO, I cant see them letting it get to a stage where no one gets access and in the hiatus China and others are allowed to catch up on space technology.

I think the US will see sense and negotiate, but probably not until Bush leaves office.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Why would the Chinese want a ban on asat systems? They have little to gain from such treaties as they have far fewer military space systems then the USA.

If they regard the USA as a military treat then they would want more asats not less.

True in the short run, the US has far more to lose in space and thus the Chinese would want to keep their asats in case the US and China decide to get dumb enough to tussle over Taiwan.

Still, debris in orbit is bad for everyone in the long term.

I'm curious if the manned space program in China had any input on the asat program. I would think they would be against it, as it would be a direct threat to on-orbit taikonauts.

--

Interstingly, a few weeks back, I found the US asat test on an Edwards AFB website. I tried to find the page this week and it has been removed.

Sort of like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. When will any government agency figure out that once something has been posted to the internet, it is essentially permanent, despite vain attempts at removal.

Why would the Chinese want a ban on asat systems? They have little to gain from such treaties as they have far fewer military space systems then the USA.

I would think that the US is well in front of the Chinese in this technology (I think the US tested a similar device in the mid 90s) and that rather than play "catch up" China would prefer for everyone to ban them. Another thing to think about is that China's large land mass and lack of infrastructure will probably make it necessary for them to use satellites much more extensively than the US for comms and technolgy transfer throughout their country.

Also it is a way of applying pressure on the US to demilitarise space (or at least stop further escallation). Since the US has more to loose by countries deploying anti-satellite systems then it makes sense for them to try and limit their use. They cannot negotiate this while they are actively pursuing such weapons themselves.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

There is no way Space is going to be demiliterised. Modern military forces
depend on space applications. Even Australia has military space assets. So forget about demiliterization.

If a war broke out with China you can be assured the Chinese will want to win. They won't pack away their rice bowls and go home if they lose 3000 soldiers. Nor will they care about space junk. They will do all they can to take out their enemy and if that enemy is the USA does spysat are going to be a target.

ta

Ralph

Andy Hill wrote:

ralphbuttigieg wrote:

Why would the Chinese want a ban on asat systems? They have little to gain from such treaties as they have far fewer military space systems then the USA.

I would think that the US is well in front of the Chinese in this technology (I think the US tested a similar device in the mid 90s) and that rather than play "catch up" China would prefer for everyone to ban them. Another thing to think about is that China's large land mass and lack of infrastructure will probably make it necessary for them to use satellites much more extensively than the US for comms and technolgy transfer throughout their country.

Also it is a way of applying pressure on the US to demilitarise space (or at least stop further escallation). Since the US has more to loose by countries deploying anti-satellite systems then it makes sense for them to try and limit their use. They cannot negotiate this while they are actively pursuing such weapons themselves.

There is no way Space is going to be demiliterised. Modern military forces depend on space applications. Even Australia has military space assets. So forget about demiliterization.

You are probabbly right but that doen't mean to say that limits cant be negotiated on what is and is not permissable. No one really wants orbiting platforms bristling with anti-satellite missiles do they?

The US seems to want to keep this option open at the moment and China may see ASAT as a way of avoiding this scenario by pressurising the US to negotiate.

Its interesting that the US and a number of other countries have been so vocal in its condemnation over China's test, I cant remember everyone being so up in arms when the US did theirs (perhaps my memory is failing as I shuffle along into my dotage ). The pot calling the kettle black perhaps?

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

You are probabbly right but that doen't mean to say that limits cant be negotiated on what is and is not permissable. No one really wants orbiting platforms bristling with anti-satellite missiles do they?

Well, the people who puts up the asats sure do. Otherwise they wouldn'tbuild them.

Andy Hill wrote:

Its interesting that the US and a number of other countries have been so vocal in its condemnation over China's test, I cant remember everyone being so up in arms when the US did theirs (perhaps my memory is failing as I shuffle along into my dotage ). The pot calling the kettle black perhaps?

Its interesting that the US and a number of other countries have been so vocal in its condemnation over China's test, I cant remember everyone being so up in arms when the US did theirs (perhaps my memory is failing as I shuffle along into my dotage ). The pot calling the kettle black perhaps?

Technically, the US test was less hazardous, for two reasons:

1. Test was in 1985 and there were less satellites in LEO at that time.
2. US test was below 600 km, so by now, most of the debris has reentered.

Still, it's a little arrogant to develop such technology and then condemn anyone else who does so.

In some ways, I hope the US Air Force will finally take space situational awareness seriously and actually get for more funding for the space surveillance network. Increasing funding for the existing space surveillance network is a good thing. The SSN is overtasked and underfunded. Too many near misses.

However, I suspect they will use this as an excuse to develop other stuff that is less politically acceptable to the world. Not that the Russians and Chinese and possibly a few others aren't developing similar technologies.

To be realistic, even with a treaty, I wouldn't trust any of the major governments out there to not develop the technology. Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag and it is going to be difficult to put it back in.

Earlier I stated, "...I would support a ban on asat weapons." In hindsight, this is unrealistic. What we should try to do is "limit any event that intentionally creates significant amount of debris." This is kind of 'effects based objective" thinking. We can't expect to ban a lot of very specific asats. New ones would be developed that would drive through any treaty loopholes.

I can see a few instances where you'd legitimately have a right to generate debris: 1. reentry over populated area... burning up small debris is easier, although it would depend on what hazardous substances you had on your spacecraft. 2. This one is a bit of a stretch... if your spacecraft is about to fall into enemy hands, then a self-destruct might be your only choice.... like I said, a bit of a stretch. 3. ICBM missile interceptions. While it's generally easier to intercept missiles in boost phase, mid-course is your next opportunity. Debris creation would be inevitable (if you hit).

Unrestricted weapons development for space is a bad idea, though it is unrealistic not to expect some developments. We'd be better off setting some achievable limits on weapons in space (e.g. no space based offensive missiles (weapons with any sort of warhead or weapons capable of surviving reentry)).

I don't think the US, Russia or China would agree to serious limits, but I could be wrong about China. They are more politically shrewd than most of us give them credit for.

Actually the neo-cons are as big an enemy to milspace as pacifists are.

Here is why. If I were to develop a Space Based Laser powerful enough to strike ground targets---why do I need an Air Force? Or Nimitz's

Just run it all out of Cheyenne Mountain. There's Osama! ZAP!!

So naturally the Air Force Hates it---and so does the Navy. One still thinks its in MiG Alley--the other still thinks it's in Jutland or Midway--as if a handful of carriers with a handful of fighters dropping a handful of bombs on a handful of Muslims is worth anything.

The psychological effect of being a target to instant laser attack is numbing however.

Lasers--or RF weapons better yet-- can disable ICBMs or killer satellites before they have a chance to MIRV warheads--or even separate stages.

Thus, such a space strike can be carried out without any chance of debris, in that you would be shooting down at enemy ICBMs/killer satellites coming up in boost phase---not shooting up at a cloud of space junk coming back down. Even a successful hit just knocks more debris in space.

Large Space based radars that can detect REAL WMDs (check the last 2 issues of space news) are under threat--but the fighter jocks get whatever they want. Ares V would be a perfect LV for the large JSTARS in Space concept under threat now.

Even if you don't want to weaponize space--you must admit that a radar is a pretty good thing to have--to guide missiles to burst bunkers perhaps.

But I agree with all of you that space debris is to be avoided.

If nothing else--you may have to build HLLVs just to have heavy, armored satellites---if Galileo shound come under US attack.

As it stands now--the folks in the US Navy are too busy reading Mahan and books about "crossing the 'T'" (and watching Dogfights on the History Channel) while supporting John McCain who will give the USN more playtoys (like JSF) that are useless against ICBMs--overkill for downing rogue airliners---and too slow for border control.

Were I President, I would cancel F-35 and F-22 and DD-X for the time--and rush Ares V into production-along with Large Space Based Radars with enough power to burn through jamming--among other things.

No more carriers or Subs for the Navy--but a return to hydrofoils for Coastal Defense.

The United States would have a real Defense Department. I would remove US Troops from the World stage, and have my country mind its own business--while actually protecting the US populace with defensive weapons---

Perhaps an ABL on the bow of an LNG with reactors on it. Such a LH2/ LOX supertanker would zap ICBMs and rogue airliners, supply cryogenics to US ports to replace hydrocarbon fuels---and it would tow/refuel Sea Dragon, of course. Multi-Use.

A true 21st Century military.

Or we can spend mega bucks on short range ABM systems, JSF/F22s, and farming alternative energy that takes a lot out of the soil, etc.---and wind up spending far more due to the unrelated nature of these technologies which have zero commonality, unlike the POWERSHIP scenario I propose above.